On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:25:50PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:43:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > Looking at the bug report, I can agree that there is a rough > > consensusabout using a "standard" text-based markup language to > > interpret package long descriptions. What is unclear, though, which of > > the two equivalent languages (Markdown or ReStructured Text) are being > > proposed here -- either one of these would be acceptable, and there are > > working implementations of either that seem to do a very creditable job. > > > We need to pick one or the other (and at this point, I am > > agnostic to whatever is picked, since either is a standard that is > > popular and is not a NIH spec) -- and I do not see anything claer about > > which one policy should support. > > > We could, as an example, go by pop-con results for the > > interpreters -- that is one defensible means of selecting the language, > > I guess. > > My main concern with this request is that by blessing the use of a > text-based markup language for lists, we not end up in a situation where > maintainers are using more extensive markup that makes the package > descriptions less legible as plain text. As long as the policy language is > precise in limiting this to list formatting, I agree that both of the > options should do the job fine.
I agree, and I come to think that specifying explicitly in policy a small subset of either Markdown or ReStructured Text (or preferably of the intersection of them) as allowable for package description would be a safer option. Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
